|
This seems like a popular conspiracy theory. But in what way does it make sense? Yes, the numbers are close, but 1) Why not pick a larger number, if there is legal basis to ask for it? Is there a benefit to winning the exact amount they owe somewhere else, aside from trolling? More money would be better, wouldn't it? 2) Why not pick a smaller number, if just a little, to avoid the similarity in the number (such similarities are noticed, as you are doing)? It seems more likely that 2.7M is a number that they can justify legally. It may also have been justifiable legally in another lawsuit. Yes, it seems like an interesting coincidence. So what? The same thing happened with the 16M figure from earlier in her trial - it appears both as a possible maximum willful damages number from her lawsuit, assuming she won, and somewhere in the legal proceedings of her husband's hedge fund. Again, an interesting coincidence, but the same objections arise. Overall, the fact that people pored through all the numbers in her lawsuit, and all the numbers in her husbands affairs (one lawsuit, one hedge fund fiasco), and found some dots to connect, seems to say more about people looking for patterns than about Pao and her husband. |